International Association for Coptic Studies

Next month, the International Association for Coptic Studies will be having its ninth international congress.

For a listing of topics that will be discussed, you can see April DeConick's posting from a year ago here.

The meeting will be held in the Sonesta Hotel in Cairo from Sept. 14 until Sept. 20. I wish I could go! If any of my readers are going, I would love to hear a report (the highlights anyway).

Obama, McCain, and Rick Warren

Today, Aug. 16, 2008, will be the first meeting of McCain and Obama on the same stage at Rick Warren's megachurch, Saddleback. They have not been on the same stage together since before the primary season began.

Last I knew, the issues slated to be discussed were Rick Warren's pet issues of poverty, AIDS, and the environment. That the first major political discussion is being held at a church rather than in the (secular) public arena is a concern for many, who see the "wall of separation" between church and state beginning to crumble (if it ever really held very firm to begin with). Both candidates are clearly seeking the much coveted evangelical vote.

See background from NYT here. And I posted on this a while back here.

UPDATE: See some early results of the event here.

The Wrath of Achilles

Wrath—one of the most famous first words in all of world literature. The word sets the pace, the tone, the content of the Iliad, shaping the plot of all there is to come.

Wrath—Sing, Goddess, the wrath of Peleus’ son Achilles,
murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses,
hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls,
great fighters’ souls, but made their bodies carrion,
feasts for the dogs and the birds,
and the will of Zeus was moving toward its end.
Begin, Muse, when the two first broke and clashed,
Agamemnon lord of men and brilliant Achilles.
(Iliad, 1.1-8; trans. Robert Fagles with some changes)

The first word is menis. It is not just “anger” as the magisterial translation of Richmond Lattimore has rendered it. It is sustained anger, almost godlike in its intensity and singularity. Thus, Robert Fagles’ “rage” more clearly fits the bill. Yet I prefer the terminology of “wrath.” It reminds me of the wrath of God, which it approximates, that it is headed toward, and almost achieves, but never fully so, since Achilles is still only human. Yet it is a rage that in its legendary greatness cannot be replicated by any other human—it is the most godlike rage a human can achieve. Thus, I prefer wrath.

The wrath of Achilles defines him, and the entire plot of the Iliad unwinds from its vicissitudes. Achilles’ wrath is singular, flattening him as a character, making him nearly unidimensional (Achilles does have his other moments in which we see another side barely break through), but its focus and unidimensionality make him an unbeatable warrior. His monolithic quality makes him wrath’s embodiment; or, put another way, literally transfigures him into wrath. He becomes, as it were, a mortal god, defined by a singular characteristic, much like Ares is the personification of war, or Athena, wisdom or cunning. Unbeatable in combat, yet ultimately mortal. It is his greatest trait, and his ultimate doom, bringing down everyone with him into Hades.

This wrath motivates the story. The plot unfolds based upon the direction that Achilles points his wrath. As the introductory stanza indicates, he points it first to his own side, Agamemnon, the son of Atreus. He is the king of Mycenae (Mykenai), and the king of kings, the leader of all the Achaeans in this war. When he took the captive Briseis from Achilles, Achilles turned his wrath toward Agamemnon, refusing to fight. And, without this force of nature, wrath incarnate, fighting, the Trojans, led by their Tamer of Forces, Hector, began to push the Achaeans back to their ships. Hector, like all of the Trojans, is really the "Breaker of Horses" but I like to consider this in the aspect of taming wild forces, bringing them into civilized society, which Troy itself represents, in contrast to the wild force and fury of unattached Achilles.

Hector is a much more interesting character in my opinion than Achilles. Hector clearly is the second greatest warrior in the Iliad, but unlike Achilles who is unidimensionally wrathful, Hector is multidimensional. He is Hector, the prince of Troy, the beloved son of old King Priam, devoted husband to Andromache, a father with a young child, and responsible for the safety of the entire city of Troy. They all depend upon his strength, his courage, and his leadership. He is universally beloved, and considered universally kind. Fighting for a cause that he does not believe in—the folly of judgment of Paris, his younger brother—he is now forced to defend all those he loves, and fights to the death to do it.

If there is any other shaper of events in the Iliad, it is the judgment of Paris. Well known from the overall story of the Trojan War, it only plays a small part in the Iliad itself, which focuses on a small segment of the larger story. Only partially alluded to in the Iliad, three very powerful goddesses—Hera, the queen of the gods, Athena, and Aphrodite—asked Paris, the most beautiful of men, to judge the fairest. He chose Aphrodite. In the story of the involvement of the gods in the Iliad, Aphrodite always sides with the Trojans—as does, most notably, Apollo. Hera and Athena consistently support the Achaeans. The judgment of Paris explains this—Paris chose beauty and lust before wisdom or cunning, unlike cunning Odysseus who is favored by Athena. He chose this instead of respecting family responsibilities. In short, the most beautiful man chose the most beautiful woman (Helen, queen of Sparta, wife of Menelaos), who in turn may have chose him as well. Both are favored by Aphrodite, in fact. Both ignore family responsibilities respected in that society. Both ultimately like the wrath of Achilles, bring down so many souls to the house of death on both the Achaean and Trojan sides, giving the wrath of Achilles a place to roam, leading to the destruction of Troy.

Yet Paris lacks the courage to take responsibility for his actions. He cannot beat Menelaos in one-on-one combat, as happens in the Iliad. He cannot save Troy from his own actions. Only Hector can, but Hector cannot escape Achilles’ wrath should it ever turn directly with intense focus towards him. Once Hector, the Tamer of Forces, is gone, Troy will be doomed. In fact, it is in his attractively textured multidimensionality as a character that one finds his own undoing. With all the web of responsibilities to his family and to his city resting on his shoulders, he cannot possibly maintain the singular, almost adolescent and yet divine wrathful focus of the unattached Achilles.

Indeed, once Achilles equivocates, allowing his beloved Patroclus into battle, wearing Achilles’ own armor, Patroclus dies by the hand of Hector. It is this act that finally turns Achilles’ wrath from Agamemnon, the Lord of Men, to Hector, the Tamer of Forces. It is this act that transfigures Achilles’ adolescent wrath against Agamemnon to godlike wrath, complete with a fiery nimbus and a divine roar (with the aid of Athena), against Hector. This might explain why this takes place in the tenth year. Achilles nearly divine wrath had not been fully awakened by his enemy. Now no force can stop him, not even the Tamer of Forces.

Hector, realizing he had mistaken Patroclus for Achilles, knows what is coming, is driven back, waits for Achilles, and, in the end, loses his nerve. Eventually forced to take a stand, he fights Achilles. But he is no match for godlike wrath, so intense that almost nothing can abate it. Achilles, as wrath personified, kills Hector, presaging the destruction of Troy itself, dragging his body and leaving it unburied, an insult unbearable to Hector’s family, the Trojans, and even the gods. The gods, recognizing the heroic greatness of Hector, keep his body undefiled. Indeed, Achilles wrath is not abated until King Priam, in the most touching scene in the Iliad (and much of all ancient literature), sneaks into the Achaean camp, into Achilles’ tent, and the great king begs for his son’s body from the man who killed him. Now ends the wrath of Achilles, now ends the Iliad.

Although this is not my usual fare in posting, I am teaching Literature of the Humanities this year, and so expect such notes and meditations on classic literature to begin to emerge in my postings.

My Amazon Wishlist Widget

How often have you said to yourself, "Gee, I wish I could just buy Jared, that poor bibliophiliac graduate student, a book, but I just don't know what he would like or if he has it already!" Well...this post is for you. I have just added a widget to my site that shows my most recently added items to my Amazon wishlist. I noticed I had about 150 books saved for later in my cart. And was beginning to think this was ludicrous, so I am slowly transferring these books that I cannot possibly buy myself to my wishlist just in case someone out there looks, and thinks, "He hasn't read that! By God, we must get that guy up to date!" Although, I know that most people who read this are themselves poor graduate students or poor professors...but it is still worth a shot! :)

Professor Poaching at Public Universities

Professor poaching is something that is quite widespread throughout academe. I see it all the time at Columbia (usually from the perspective of the poacher).

From the side of the poached, however, large public universities are being forced to create special funds in order to keep highly productive, high profile professors who are getting outside offers, and this in a down economy. And they seem to be doing a good job. According to an article in the Chronicle, many of the major public universities are retaining about 75% of the faculty whom they give a counteroffer. They don't give counteroffers to everyone (sometimes the offer from the other institution is just too good to match or beat, and they don't bother with institutions they perceive as less prestigious). But money is only part of the strategy. They are matching some of the poachers' benefits--things like reduction of course load, increased graduate students, increased teaching or research assistance, and simply making sure they receive higher merit pay increases (evidently, one problem in this economic downturn is that recently tenured, high profile associate professors are often making salaries close to recently hired faculty, making them want to look elsewhere). If that doesn't get you, then perhaps a coveted parking spot would!

See the full article here.

Financial Problems Unique to Catholic Universities

In the Chronicle, there was an article detailing some of the financial difficulties that many Catholic Universities are currently facing across the US.

Most of the colleges and universities were founded by orders like the Jesuits or the Sisters of Notre Dame, etc. They relied upon these orders or the church for funding and oftentimes for the physical land and buildings as well! The faculty have traditionally been filled by priests, nuns, and monks who taught for free! Boards also drew upon such pools rather than people skilled in raising money (as at other institutions).

But such unpaid faculty members are in shrinking supply. In fact, there have been increasingly fewer Catholics going into these religious orders since the 60s (correlating with Vatican II). Faculty positions, therefore, are being filled by lay people, who require payment and benefits comparable to their counterparts in other universities. And the boards are not very adept at raising money, meaning that their endowments are small compared to schools of the same size or quality.

The exception to much of this is the University of Notre Dame with an endowment of $5.9 Billion (which is the 14th largest of any college in the country and the largest for any Catholic institution of higher learning).

Most Catholic colleges emphasize affordability (in line with the larger mission of the church to the poor), and so cost less than comparable private universities, but, ironically, due to their smaller endowments, depend upon tuition far more! Hurting the most are the all women's colleges (or traditionally all women's colleges), which, on the whole, receive far less alumni donations than traditionally all men's colleges, and, being founded later than most men's colleges, also have had less time for their endowment to grow.

Nonetheless, many of these institutions are learning the fund-raising game, and are turning things around, at least, according to the article.

Book Note: The Last Professors by Frank Donoghue

I just finished reading The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities by Frank Donoghue, who is an Associate Professor of English at Ohio State University. I read this because the chair of my department has asked the entire department to read it, but I would recommend it to all humanities professors or professors to be. And while it focuses on the humanities, many of the observations affect the future of the university world as a whole.

Unlike similar books, Donoghue takes a long perspective. Most books speak of a crisis in higher education beginning in the 80s, perhaps the 70s in the clash between corporate business values and the values of the university. He claims, instead, that this tension has been around for over a century, at least since the rise of monopolistic capitalists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But this is not just a book about corporate values of competition and the bottom line versus the last bastion of progressive thought and social formation of universities, but how universities increasingly appear like businesses, social institutions that were to form a well-rounded character and responsible citizens turning exclusively into job-training centers (which previously was considered one, and perhaps not even the most important, aspect of college education), turning professors into service employees.

One can see this in the life of a scholar from graduate student to receiving tenure has been increasingly set up on a capitalistic competition model. Increasingly, graduate students are being forced to publish early and often, with quantity often being favored over quality as signs of "productivity" (another market, rather than traditional university, value), having a well-established research-portfolio even before they finish their dissertations. Once they get a job, the competition only intensifies until they receive tenure. Increasingly, evaluations for jobs and tenure has turned to quantifiable metrics (of, what seems to me to be ultimately unquantifiable qualities). But there is a huge problem with this, since the typical publication of monographs has been university presses, which, themselves, are being forced into the productivity model (and, in fact, scholarly monographs were never really supposed to make money). The problem is that many libraries through the US have experienced cutbacks, and they cannot buy the books they used to, and libraries were and are the primary buyer of monographs. With such a state of affairs, university publishing houses only recoup about half the cost of publication of a monograph when the monograph is successful! With presses now being forced into looking at the bottom line rather than seeing if a monograph makes a significant contribution to knowledge, the cult of the monograph is in trouble. Indeed, since the monograph has become in the humanities the primary hoop to gain tenure, the tenure-decision process is being effectively outsourced to the struggling university presses, who, in fact, are not necessarily only taking the quality of a work into consideration, but also its marketability.

Both corporate and university representatives seem fixated on the idea of tenure. Business-minded people see it as a relic of an antiquated system, whereas university-minded people tend to see it as a guarantor of freedom of thought (if one can be easily fired, then how can one effectively express challenging thoughts and critical reflection--what university professors pride themselves on). Donoghue basically argues that both sides use faulty logic, but whatever the logic, the erosion of tenure is a fact. Indeed, more and more universities have found that adjunct and non-tenure eligible professors are far cheaper than their tenured counterparts. They are cheaper because they are usually on one-year contracts, they are paid by the class, and receive absolutely no benefits. Moreover, they are not given any leaves or sabbaticals to pursue research. This cheap teaching force is worn to the bone with no rights or privileges in the policies (such as hiring and tenure) that would affect them most. How big is this labor-force? Tenured and tenure-track professors constitute only 35% of college teachers throughout the nation (and this is not including TAs who are classified not as teachers but as students). This 65% of non-tenure eligible teachers is only likely to rise, reflecting the mindset of maintaining the bottom-line, in which university administration appears more like a managerial culture and the professoriate becomes cheap labor without little recourse to influence policy (as they traditionally have had).

Much of these trends can be seen in the rising number of for-profit universities (the most famous and the largest being the University of Phoenix). These universities run completely on a corporate model and, in fact, they are corporations or sub-components of larger corporate entities. In fact, many of these universities are publicly traded on the NYSE. Their goals also appear to be quantitatively rather than qualitatively oriented. They hire and fire their employees (professors) based upon non-reflective statistics--basically, student evaluations, without taking into account the various factors that go into a numerical rating of a course. These corporate universities do not grant tenure, make general policies about teaching and content control that professors, who have become depersonalized cogs in the machine, just have to take (or get fired). The long-cherished professorial value of autonomy (whether ever fully a reality) has completely disappeared. For-profit universities are attractive to students over 25 who want on-demand training--this, by the way, is the largest growing student population in the US. These universities have seen market forces and responded. They offer a stream-lined curriculum for "practical" job training, basically cutting out humanities or highly devaluing them even as they have them (for accrediting purposes).

On the other end of the spectrum stand the "prestige" institutions--this is Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. These institutions have a large enough endowment that they do not particularly have to pay attention to the vicissitudes of market forces and can maintain their humanities driven curriculum...but this means that the humanities will (or will again) become the privilege of the already privileged--they will be the only ones who can afford to send their children to these institutions, although they too increasingly have succumbed to corporate models of organization, but they have been resistant to them the most. Indeed, prestige in the US has become a commodity, quantified yearly in US News & World Report. Their method behind the rankings often goes unquestioned and most people just look at the rankings themselves--a remarkable lack of critical thought, the very thing that the universities ranked are supposed to cultivate. The magazine will rate several factors, somewhat arbitrarily privileging some of others (such as university presidents' peer reviews of fellow institutions, which is 25% of the rating--most university presidents cannot speak adequately of all aspects of all their peer institutions, but their reviews receive the most weight nonetheless). Since the general public looks at the ratings, however, universities now focus on those specific areas that the rankings measure, allowing market forces to determine what is important in university education rather than educators in order to receive a more prestigious rating.

The most effected institutions are, however, everything between the top prestigious institutions and the for-profit, stream-lined universities--primarily state schools. These schools are pulled in each direction, trying to attain prestige on one end, but focusing on stream-lined job training that responds to ever-changing market forces on the other end. They cannot compete with the prestige, on the one hand, because one of the ways that prestige is ranked is through exclusivity. While some of the brightest minds go to state schools (because of location issues, and money--state schools are much cheaper), they, by definition, cannot be exclusive. They attempt prestige through other means, such as attracting professors or pushing for higher output among their professors (again, privileging quantity over quality), but research grants move more and more to "practical" fields (Business) rather than critical-thinking fields (everything from English to Math). Being pressured from both ends, these institutions are most likely to shift to corporate models of productivity and the bottom-line, worried about making money rather than expanding knowledge, in the assembly-line of the factory production of the workforce.

In the end, in order to be prepared to respond to changing circumstances and resist these changes or redirect them into new models, professors and professors to be must situate themselves, becoming aware of institutional forces that, trying to maintain an idea of autonomy and individualism, professors have ignored. I tried to do this with religion in my conference at Columbia University this past spring, "Instituting Religion," in which speakers tried to expose some institutional forces that shape the places where we work and our very conceptualizations of our subject, such as funding, marketability, etc. (see Instituting Religion tags). The future of the university and the university professor appears to be a scary prospect, but it will be worse if we are not cognizant of it in order to rearticulate our position in the university and the role of the professor and the university as a whole in society.

The Dalai Lama Deal

In today's NYTimes, there is an op-ed article on the Dalai Lama's willingness to make a deal with the current Chinese government, conceding the Chinese communist-run government in Tibet and that he would stay out of politics. In short, Tibet would be politically Chinese and communist, but religiously and culturally Tibetan and Buddhist.

The Dalai Lama is aging, and time for negotiations are running out. Younger Tibetans think the Dalai Lama is too conciliatory to the Chinese government, while many fear that, once the Dalai Lama dies, there will be no uniting force for Tibetans and the younger generation will turn to violence (i.e., terrorism).

Read the full article here.

Ancient Thracian Chariot Found in Bulgaria

According to an AP article, a complete ancient Thracian chariot was found in an old burial mound in modern-day Bulgaria. Parts of chariots have been found through scattered parts of the region, but this is the first time a complete, intact chariot has been discovered here:

Bulgarian archaeologists discover ancient chariot

By VESELIN TOSHKOV, Associated Press WriterThu Aug 7, 8:24 AM ET

Archaeologists have unearthed a 1,900-year-old well-preserved chariot at an ancient Thracian tomb in southeastern Bulgaria, the head of the excavation said Thursday.

Daniela Agre said her team found the four-wheel chariot during excavations near the village of Borisovo, around 180 miles east of the capital, Sofia.

"This is the first time that we have found a completely preserved chariot in Bulgaria," said Agre, a senior archaeologist at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

She said previous excavations had only unearthed single parts of chariots — often because ancients sites had been looted.

At the funerary mound, the team also discovered table pottery, glass vessels and other gifts for the funeral of a wealthy Thracian aristocrat.

In a separate pit, they unearthed skeletons of two riding horses apparently sacrificed during the funeral of the nobleman, along with well preserved bronze and leather objects, some believed to horse harnesses.

The Culture Ministry confirmed the find and announced $3,900 in financial assistance for Agre's excavation.

Agre said an additional amount of $7,800 will be allocated by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences for an initial restoration and conservation of the chariot and the other Thracian finds.

The Thracians were an ancient people that inhabited the lands of present day Bulgaria and parts of modern Greece, Turkey, Macedonia and Romania between 4,000 B.C. and the 6th century, when they were assimilated by the invading Slavs.

Some 10,000 Thracian mounds — some of them covering monumental stone tombs — are scattered across Bulgaria.

See a slideshow of archaeologists uncovering the chariot here.

What WOULD Jesus Do?

Ok...I saw this link on Jim Davila's blog, Paleojudaica, and when I clicked it, I was rolling on the floor laughing!! Well...almost....that would have hurt. But the best answer to the question, "What Would Jesus Do (WWJD)?" has to be this. While the question is meant to inspire imitation, the answer frustrates any facile application of ancient perspectives to modern behavior. It nicely illustrates the differences between Jesus and ourselves, between his world and ours. A shocking reminder perhaps, but definitely a hilarious one.

Quote of the Day: The Wildean Paradox

I was just reading an essay by Umberto Eco entitled, "Wilde: Paradox and Aphorism," and I stumbled across one of my favorite bons mots by Oscar Wilde:

"When people agree with me I always feel that I must be in the wrong."

Here are some others for fun:

"Every great man has his disciples, and it is always Judas who writes the biography."

"I can resist everything but temptation."

"Falsehoods [are] the truth of other people."

"The only duty we owe to History is to rewrite it."

"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."

These are also amusing because they reverse common sense:

"Life is far too important a thing ever to talk seriously about."

"Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess."

"Anyone can make history. Only a great man can write it."

"The English have everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language."

Being a historian, the second to last saying here particularly speaks to me!

How Monotheistic were Ancient Jews?

מי־כמוכה באלים יהוה

(Exodus 15:11)

The question comes from an issue raised regarding whether the enthronement of Enoch in the Similitudes of Enoch and Moses in Ezekiel's "Exagoge" actually "threaten" monotheism. I have been discussing it with Ken Schenck, professor of religion and philosophy at Indiana Wesleyan University and the blogger of Quadrilateral Thoughts. They have been side comments on a broader discussion, and so I thought I would make them the forefront of the discussion here. He also has a nice discussion of the spectrum of scholarly positions...so I would recommend reading that for helpful background. But, now, I would like everyone else to weigh in.

Traditionally, scholars and people in general have assumed that ancient Judaism was monotheistic. Second Isaiah clearly thinks so--so we have one ancient Jew (or Judahite) who was monotheistic (with perhaps a school). And in a particular interpretation of the Sh'ma, one seems to be saying there is one god. Many scholars recently have been challenging this belief. It is not just that there were many "Judaisms" in antiquity--there were, in fact, a bewildering variety of positions on many subjects, and these disagreements focused on three core elements: the temple, the Torah, and God, emphasizing these elements' importance by disagreeing about them. But it is a matter of translation and interpretation of specific texts as well. Now, many scholars are challenging the idea that ancient Judaism was monotheistic (or always so). One can see this, for example, in Paula Frederiksen's essay, "Mandatory Retirement: Ideas in the study of Christian origins whose time has come to go" (Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuse 35/2 (2006): 231-46). In response, Richard Bauckam and Larry Hurtado have defended ancient Jewish monotheism. So, there is a good debate being waged by very good scholars on all sides (and some more extreme positions on both sides).

I tend to think things are very messy, indeed, and one cannot really make blanket statements of what all Jews believed or did in antiquity. There was a time when I used to think that post-exile all Jews were monotheistic, but the more I read the primary texts, the less I have come to believe the secondary ones.

Firstly, "belief" is too tricky. There is no way to know whether the majority of Jews believed in only one God or even worshiped only one God, because religion in antiquity was a public thing. As long as one publicly only worshiped YHWH, that was all that really mattered (for the most part).

Nonetheless, some Jews have left records. As noted above, some Jews were clearly purely monotheistic (as in 2nd Isaiah and possibly the Sh'ma), but the evidence is rarely so clear as in these cases and surprisingly slim. Most Second Temple documents appear to land somewhere between monotheism and polytheism, saying there was one powerful God on top (their God) and lots of lesser gods (which, today, we call angels, but were often called "gods" (elim) in antiquity). Everyone recognizes this middle space, and the arguments depend upon how one interprets this middle space. In that sense, the difference between someone like Bauckham and Frederiksen, say, is often just a matter of emphasis (which shows I think the difference between monotheism and polytheism is not a very bit step), but sometimes a matter of translation.

For example, I often work with an ancient Jewish text found at Qumran named, "the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice." They consist of thirteen songs sung on successive Sabbaths that exhort the beings of the heavenly realm to praise the "God of gods" while evoking the imagery of the heavenly realm at the same time.

These Songs, interestingly enough, appear to assume a plurality of divine beings in heaven, using the generic word “god/s” for not only the high god, but all other subordinate divine beings. In fact, the word for “angel” (מלאך) is so rare in comparison to the other words for god (אלוהים, אל), gods (אלים), and even divinity or “godhood” (אלוהות), that I am reluctant to refer to these as the angelic liturgies or to discussion the angelic priesthood (for angel, see 4Q405 17:4, 5). There are many orders of divine beings with special names in the Songs. The text often speaks of “spirits” (רוחים or רוחות) and, especially, “spirits of fire” (רוחי אש֝). One also finds “princes” (נשיאים) and even “secondary princes” (4Q400 3ii:2). In addition, they are called "holy ones" and "glorified ones" (4Q400 3ii:9). In the end, the text just does not speak of “God,” but, emphasizing the exaltation of the high God, the text often speaks of “the God of Gods.” Given the language of the text, the emphasis on “angel” actually obscures the fluidity of the concept of divine beings in the text; thus, I think a more accurate terminology refers to the “divine priesthood.” Therefore, when the word מלאך does appear, one should translate according to function as “messenger” rather than “angel,” since, given the plethora of divine beings, these appear to be "messenger gods" or "divine messengers" rather than a general term that encompasses the orders of divine beings under the God of Gods in this text.

The discussion of the hierarchy of divine beings, in fact, is not far off in language or structure from other ancient conceptions of the divine world that we label “polytheist” even while we label this “monotheist.” Clearly there was greater fluidity at this time and the modern conception of monotheism just does not mesh with these particular ancient Jewish texts. This pluralistic conception of god/s in ancient Hebrew and Jewish texts, though, originates in some of the earliest layers of the Pentateuch. For example, in the Song of the Sea in Exod. 15:11, an extremely early piece of Hebrew poetry, the question is asked, “Who is like you among the gods, O LORD?” (מי־כמוכה באלים יהוה). These texts do not deny the existence of other beings, called gods, whether belonging to other cultures or among Yahweh’s entourage. At the same time, as in Exodus, there is no doubt which god is in charge in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: the god whom all the other gods must exalt and praise at each step of the divine liturgies and who sits on the chariot-throne in Song 12. I would argue, therefore, that using the terminology of a plurality of gods actually heightens or more highly exalts the highest God in the text--the God of Gods is not merely more exalted than "angels," but even more exalted than all other "gods," who, in turn, must pay obeisance to him.

In fact, Song 7 primarily consists of the call to worship of divine beings. Or, more precisely, the Song is a list of the human priesthood exhorting various classes of divine beings to praise the ultimate divine being, here called various “the God of exaltations,: “the King of glory,” “the God of effulgent praises,” “God of gods to all the chiefs of exaltations and King of kings to all eternal councils,” and so forth. Moreover, beginning in Song 9 and culminating in the vision of the throne-chariot in Song 12, not only does the text exhort various classes of divine beings, called “gods,” to praise God, but also aspects of the celestial architecture, particularly the furnishings of the inner chamber of the heavenly sanctuary. In fact, the difference between divine beings and the heavenly sanctuary’s architecture begins to blur as the architectural elements come alive to praise God on his throne. And so, the next section turns to some of the language surrounding the heavenly sanctuary, its architecture, and its “structure.”

So, is this really monotheism? Not in any modern sense of the term, at the very least. But, on the other hand, Larry Hurtado seems to be right on target--only one being is offered worship (and it is quite an innovation when it is offered to Jesus). And there is clear resistance of this system to mesh with other theological conceptions in antiquity--other groups easily correlated figures of their pantheon with other culture's pantheons--equating Greek, Roman, Egyptian (which was actually quite difficult), Canaanite, Babylonian. The Jewish system excluded this possibility--so it does not seem to be really polytheistic either.

So perhaps this is sort of an exclusivist polytheistic monolatry? Exclusivist because they don't meld with other systems, or think other people's gods are demons or perhaps some of these lesser divine beings that serve the high god (divine courtiers, in a way). Polytheistic because all these beings are clearly called gods in some way (the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is a perfect example of this, but many of the Qumran finds fit into this). We often translate the word "god" as "angel," but this seems to me to be an anachronistic, more modern, predilection. If the ancient Jews were comfortable calling these beings "gods," then I think we should as well in our historical discussions of at least the texts that do. Monolatry because only one of them, the highest one, is worshiped, and even worshiped by the "gods." In a sense, being the "God of gods." So, Hurtado's basic thesis on worship stands, but things are a bit messier--the evidence for monotheism is not nearly as widespread or as clear as figures like Bauckham make it (I know Bauckham places a lot of weight on things being "creatures" but this seems to read the texts through the Arian crisis). Really, outside of one passage in Isaiah and a particular interpretation of the Sh'ma, there isn't much.

Most texts, however, do not provide such extended reflection on these issues as Isaiah (on one end) and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (on the other end). So, for example, famously in the Life of Adam and Eve, Michael commands all the hosts of heaven to bow down to Adam in front of God. Is this divinization of Adam? Is this a threat to monotheism? Is this a threat to monolatry? Adam's divinization would depend upon the interpretation of Gen. 1, in which God made the human in his own image--thus he would be worshiped by the angels since he is the very image of God. The story is highly ironic, in my opinion, because in it Satan is the most stringent monotheist, the only one avoiding worship of an "idol" or image--nothing should be worshiped but God alone. Michael clearly commands Satan, "Worship the image of God" (14:2). It is almost as if monotheism and idolatry-avoidance is on the fallen side. I sometimes wonder if this text was almost meant to be comedic, at the very least it would be parody or even polemics--perhaps against the Priestly legislators who forbade images in worship? Against figures like Isaiah? Perhaps, in that sense, it does not threaten monotheism, but threatens the ordinances against idolatry (in the sense of using images in order to worship the one God).

Ezekiel's Exagoge is play that has a dream sequence in which Moses is enthroned and highly exalted on Mt. Sinai (much like the vision of God in Exod. 24). This text is tricky because it is a dream sequence, and any interpretation must take that into account. But, if this was actually staged, it would be quite an image to see Moses portrayed with divine (or at least divine-like) attributes on stage--it would be quite a statement. But one wonders if it is a theological statement, a political statement, or a cultural statement--sort of the whole culture wars going on in Alexandria about who originated high culture (with Jews saying they began civilization with Moses as superior to Egyptian claims, and against Greeks by saying Moses taught Orpheus, etc.)--or if it is all three in some way.

Overall, ancient Jewish texts appear to leave a lot more room for interpretation of the divine world than we used to think. Perhaps monotheism would have been an imposed norm, but there are always blurry points, fuzzy edges, and so on--and these texts may represent them.

Again, much of this seems to me to be merely a matter of emphasis, but translating elim as "angels" seems to be an act of subterfuge to me. When looking at texts like the Songs, there are clearly three classes of beings, with humans and the high God being two of them. The question is the lesser divine beings. Ancient texts call them gods, so I think we should honor that, even if that is not OUR theology today. That only one God was worshiped (the high one) is still extraordinarily important, however. But that is not evidence for monotheism. That is evidence for monolatry. Clear evidence for monotheism is there, but it is rarer than is commonly assumed.

New Template

I have been using the same template for my blog for over a year now. I liked my old template, but I thought it would be nice to have a bit of a change. So, I am going to try this format out for a while.

What You've Been Reading

I am continually amazed by the location of my readers. In addition to the U.S. (from all over the place, from all sectors of the U.S. including Alaska and Hawaii), readers regularly visit from the U.K. (mostly England, but some Scotland), New Zealand, Canada, and Germany. Occasionally, you have come from places like Russia, Israel, Egypt, Monaco, Greece, Mexico, Italy, and Panama.

I also thought I would bring together the postings that you have been reading most often. So, what have you been reading?

1) Topping the list, most of you have been reading about the Antikythera Mechanism here. It may be because this is a recent post, but, then again, my other recent posts have not received nearly this much attention. Here's to science and technology of the ancients!

2) Coming in a close second, many of you have also been searching for an old version of Trivial Pursuit here. It is confirming to find out that so many of you have had the same difficulties. You have confirmed for me that Trivial Pursuit, for whatever reason, is nearly impossible to find in Manhattan. But you all should see my follow-up posting here, discussing how I eventually found a copy (I recommend EBay or thrift stores--anywhere you can find something used).

3) Thirdly, many of you keep checking out my series of Chuck Palahniuk quotes from his novel, Rant, particularly the religion quotes--I hope you all like discussions of liminality. Check that out here. But once you get a taste from the quotes, I recommend reading the whole book, and just enjoy the wild ride Palahniuk takes you on.

4) Finally, several people appear to be interested in the Evil Eye. Most of you have looked at the general posting of the "Ever Evil Eye" here, which also contained some bibliography, but you might also want to read the earlier post of the Evil Eye in ancient Ugarit here. If and when I ever have some free time, I am tempted to glance at the books listed in the "Ever Evil Eye" posting.

These postings display a wide range of interests among my readers, and I only hope that you find any of my discussions or at the very least the included links helpful in your search of these topics, from wherever you sit throughout the world.

Quote of the Day: Umberto Eco on Dante's "Paradiso"

So, I have been continuing to read Umberto Eco's On Literature, and he has a nice, very short, essay on Dante Alighieri's Paradiso, called "A Reading of the Paridiso." He argues that it has been misread and underestimated, in fact devalued, in the nineteenth century and this devaluation continued throughout the twentieth, with the Inferno and, to some extent, the Purgatorio gaining the most attention. In contrast, Eco argues that the Paradiso is the finest of all three canticas. He primarily sets it in the context of the medieval preference for bold, bright color to express themselves in daily life, refined by Dante in the Paradiso. But, what caught my attention is the Paradiso as amazingly modern, and, in fact, futuristic:

"Dante's Paradiso is the apotheosis of the virtual world, of nonmaterial things, of pure software, without the weight of earthly or infernal hardware, whose traces remain in the Purgatorio. The Paradiso is more than modern; it can become, for the reader who has forgotten history, a tremendously real element of the future. It represents the triumph of pure energy, which the labyrinth of the Web promises but will never be able to give us; it is an exaltation of floods and bodies without organs, an epic made of novas and white dwarf stars, an endless big bang, a story whose plot covers the distance of light years, and, if you really want familiar examples, a triumphant space odyssey, with a very happy ending. You can read the Paradiso in this way too; it can never do you any harm, and it will be better than a disco with strobe lights or ecstasy. After all, with regard to ecstasy, Dante's third cantica keeps its promises and actually delivers it."

This reminds me of one of my favorite literary critics of Dante, Erich Auerbach. Most of us know Auerbach from his magnum opus, Mimesis. But he was primarily a Dante specialist, and wrote a superb little book in which he argued that Dante, when he depicted hell, purgatory, and heaven, ironically became the first modern poet of secularity. See this fantastic book, Dante: Poet of the Secular World.

Quote of the Day: Umberto Eco

I started reading Umberto Eco's On Literature today, and found some interesting snippets in his opening essay entitled, "On Some Functions of Literature." He discusses many issues, such as the formative influence of literature on language (like Dante's on Italian, Luther's on German, Homer's on Greek, etc.). The combination of different literatures and languages, in turn, shapes individual and communal identities. He discusses freedom and fidelity of interpretation. He has this to say about the relationship between the text and interpreter:

"The world of literature is a universe in which it is possible to establish whether a reader has a sense of reality or is the victim of his own hallucinations."

He also discusses how certain things are established in literature and cannot be changed because they have entered collective knowledge or can be directly looked up (like the identity of Superman as Clark Kent--Eco loves this example, interestingly enough), and finally how certain characters migrate from place to place, from literary text to literary text, from text to oral tradition and back again, and so on--like Little Red Riding Hood or Odysseus/Ulysses. On this latter matter, he writes:

"Where exactly are these fluctuating individuals? That depends on the format of our ontology, whether it also has room for square roots, the Etruscan language, and two different ideas on the Most Holy Trinity--the Roman one, which holds that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son ("ex Patre Filioque procedit"), and the Byzantine one, which has it that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father. But this region has a very imprecise status and contains entities of varying substance, for even the Patriarch of Constantinople (who is ready to fight the Pope over the "Filioque" question) would agree with the Pope (at least I hope he would) in saying that it is true that Sherlock Holmes lives on Baker Street, and that Clark Kent is the same person as Superman"

Another aspect of these characters is that the provide models for our behavior and to make sense of others' behavior, imposing literary characteristics in our conception of everyday life. In this way, literature also can shape our desires:

"We will have to find a space in the universe where these characters live and shape our behavior to such an extent that we choose them as role models for our life, and for the life of others, so that we are clear about what we mean when we say that someone has an Oedipus complex or a Gargantuan appetite, that someone behaves quixotically, is as jealous as Othello, doubts like Hamlet, is an incurable Don Juan, or is a Scrooge. And in literature this happens not only with characters but also with situations and objects. Why do the women who come and go, talking of Michaelangelo, Montale's sharp shards of bottles stuck in the wall in the dazzling sun, Gozzano's good things of bad taste, Eliot's fear that is shown us in a handful of dust, Leopardi's hedge, Petrarch's clear cool waters, Dante's bestial meal, become obsessive metaphors, ready to tell us over and over again who we are, what we want, where we are going, or what we are not and what we don't want?"

And, finally, literature teaches us that we are not always in control of our own destiny, and, in its fixity, that some things cannot be changed in the manner of Wikipedia:

"This is what all the great narratives tell us, even if they replace God with notions of fate or the inexorable laws of life. The function of 'unchangeable' stories is precisely this: against all our desires to change destiny, they make tangible the impossibility of changing it. And in so doing, no matter what story they are telling, they are also telling our own story, and that is why we read them and love them. We need their severe, 'repressive' lesson. Hypertextual narrative has much to teach us about freedom and creativity. That is all well and good, but it is not everything. Stories that are 'already made' also teach us how to die.'"

Literature, therefore, ultimately shapes our language, identity, behavior, desires, and, in its final less, our death.

Total Solar Eclipse

While yesterday I posted on the Antikythera Mechanism, which of many things calculated solar eclipses, today there actually was a solar eclipse! It began in northern Canada, made its way through Russia and Mongolia, and arrives in China just in time for the Olympics! One can see a stunning slideshow of images from various countries where the eclipse was visible collected by AP and Reuters here. Remember! Don't star directly into it without special lenses!

Here is a taste below with a special interest in religious sites. The first image is at a church in Minsk, Belarus (partial). The third image is taken at the Faisel Mosque in Pakistan. As you can see from the map of the total eclipse, Pakistan is not along the way, receiving a partial eclipse. And the stunning second and fourth images come from China (the second is at the Great Wall).

Observing the Sabbath and Universal Cultic Inclusion in Is. 56:1-8

For those of you who do not know, my research right now primarily investigates the various ways ancient Jews and Christians bring together holy space and holy time, particularly the Sanctuary and the Sabbath, focusing on priestly traditions or traditions that reflect upon or respond to such traditions (particularly P, H, and Ezekiel; Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice; and Epistle to the Hebrews). Nonetheless, I was struck by the passage in Is. 56:1-8, which, although evincing some general conceptual similarities to P, H, and Ezekiel, takes a different tack in articulating how the Sabbath relates to the Sanctuary by universalizing the relationship.

In the priestly framework in the Priestly source of the Pentateuch (including the Holiness Code) and Ezekiel, improper reverence of the Sanctuary and lack of observance of the Sabbath, or their profanation, leads to being cut off from the community. The inverse corollary to this is that proper observance and reverence of the Sabbath and the Sanctuary leads to full inclusion and participation in the cultic life of the community. In these terms, Is. 56:1-8, the beginning of what is sometimes called Trito-Isaiah, brings the Sabbath and the Sanctuary together in a rather unique, yet complementary, way to the other Hebrew literature I have primarily investigated (P, H, and Ezekiel). The way the Sabbath and the Sanctuary are brought together, in itself, complements the views of P and Ezekiel: proper Sabbath observance and not profaning the Sabbath becomes the sin qua non of coming to the Sanctuary, here the “House of Prayer”— this Isaian passage, by the way, includes two of the ten instances of profaning the Sabbath in the Hebrew Bible. Stated another way, full cultic participation at the Sanctuary is the reward for observing the Sabbath. Yet Trito-Isaiah universalizes the relationship, allowing full cultic participation for Sabbath-observers who are Eunuchs and foreigners—a direct contradiction of Ezekiel’s and the Holiness School’s purity requirements. The “House of Prayer” is open to all who observe the Sabbath.

In the entire passage of Is. 56:1-8, the opening oracle to Trito-Isaiah, observing the Sabbath occurs three times (vv. 2, 4, 6) and profaning it twice (vv. 2, 6) (cf. Is. 58:13-14). In the passage, the Sabbath is paired with not doing evil generally (v. 2), doing pleasing things and keeping the covenant (v. 4), and holding fast the covenant (v. 6). Again, keeping the Sabbath is the only specific injunction mentioned. Throughout the passage, Sabbath, Sanctuary, and Covenant will be interwoven:

Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say,

“The LORD will surely separate me from his people”;

and let not the eunuch say,

“Behold, I am a dry tree.”

For thus says the LORD:

“To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,

who choose the things that please me

and hold fast my covenant

I will give in my house and within my walls

a monument and a name

better than sons and daughters;

I will give them an everlasting name

which shall not be cut off.

“And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD

to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD

and to be his servants,

everyone who keeps the sabbath and does not profane it

and holds fast my covenant—

these I will bring to my holy mountain

and make them joyful in my house of prayer;

their burnt offerings and their sacrifices

will be accepted on my altar;

for my house shall be called a house of prayer

for all peoples. (56:3-7)

In this Trito-Isaiah takes the Priestly source’s conception of the development of covenant to its logical conclusion: since the Mosaic covenant was given on Sinai alongside the instructions to build the Tabernacle already interwoven with the Sabbath, and, in fact, the Sabbath is the sign of the Mosaic covenant (Exod. 31:16-17). Since the Sabbath is a sign of the Covenant and the Sabbath and the Sanctuary are interrelated, keeping the Sabbath or Covenant has implications for maintaining the Sanctuary and its cult. In all of this, Trito-Isaiah is firmly ensconced in the developments found in the Priestly Source and, to a degree, in Ezekiel. Nonetheless, the passage takes this relationship between Covenant, Sabbath, and the Sanctuary to unexpected places.

There is a clear relationship between the Sabbath and the Sanctuary, but its specific configuration differs from P, H, and Ezekiel. More specifically, keeping the Sabbath and the Covenant of which it is a sign, one can approach and participate in the temple, the “house of prayer,” and its cultic life. Moreover, in quite a different twist on the history of their interrelationship, the oracle here universalizes the application. Both the eunuch and the foreigner receive rewards related to the temple, because they observed the sabbath and kept the covenant. The eunuch, whose source of progeny has been “cut off” will receive a monument and a name within “my house” (i.e., the temple). This monumental name is better than sons and daughters, and will not be “cut off,” or karet, the same word used for the punishment for profaning the Sabbath. Unlike those who profane the sabbath and are “cut off,” even a eunuch, who has no source of progeny and, therefore, a means of continuing his name, will receive a name in the temple that will not be “cut off.” In sum, unlike when one profanes the sabbath and they (and perhaps their progeny) are cut off from the cultic life of the community, by observing the Sabbath, even a eunuch can have a name that will endure within the temple and its cult and not be “cut off.”

Next, and this is quite an innovation, a foreigner who has “joined himself to the LORD,” can have full participation in the cult if that foreigner keeps the Sabbath and the Covenant. This passage shows some early signs of conversion. Whereas the Priestly source’s delineation of successive covenants moved from general to specific, from universal to just Israel, with covenants from Noah (with rainbow as the sign), Abraham (with circumcision), and Moses (with the Sabbath), Trito-Isaiah takes the final covenant with the Sabbath as its sign and applies it to everyone who chooses to observe it. By observing the Sabbath and the covenant, these foreign devotees to the LORD can come to the holy mountain, be “joyful” in the “house of prayer,” and offer burnt offerings and sacrifices upon the altar. The “house of prayer” is now open to all: “for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples” (56:7). Therefore, by keeping the Sabbath and covenant, the eunuch, in a reversal of the punishments for profaning the Sabbath, receives an enduring name that will not be “cut off” and the foreigner can come to the sanctuary on the holy mountain and fully participate in its cult.

This contrasts, indeed, with the pronouncements of Ezekiel, in which foreigners in the sanctuary profane it:

O house of Israel, let there by an end to all your abominations, in admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning it. (Ezek. 44:6-7)

No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary. (Ezek. 44:9)

Although resident aliens are accounted for, given an inheritance (Ezek. 47:22-3), they cannot participate in the temple and its cult. There may be a loophole, or perhaps an unforeseen development, since Ezekiel does not account for foreigners who keep the covenant and perhaps have become circumcised in heart and flesh. Nonetheless, Trito-Isaiah’s universalism is quite striking in contrast, taking a specific interrelationship between the Sabbath and the Sanctuary and making it applicable to all. Those who appear to be “cut off” from any progeny or “separated” from the cultic life of the temple will have those divisions rectified; if they keep the Sabbath (and do not profane it) and the Covenant, they shall be joined with the community, and have benefits in the sanctuary.